Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion InvestigationUpdate on Draft Feasibility Report and State Funding Application

February 22, 2018

Los Vaqueros Reservoir• Off-stream storage facility currently served by two Delta intakes

• Located in the coastal foothills west of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and east of the San Francisco Bay Area

• Owned and operated by Contract Costa Water District (CCWD) primarily for water quality, emergency storage and dry year supplies

San Francisco

Contra Costa Water District

Los VaquerosReservoir

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

2

Project Milestones• 1998 - 100 TAF Los Vaqueros Project completed• 2000 - CALFED Surface Storage Program established• 2004 - PL 108-361 authorized Federal feasibility study• 2009 - Reclamation & CCWD completed Draft EIS/EIR • 2010 - Reclamation & CCWD completed Final EIS/EIR• 2012 - CCWD completed Phase 1 Expansion to 160 TAF• 2017 (July) - Draft Supplement to the

Final EIS/EIR Phase 2• 2017 (August) - CCWD submitted application

for State funding under Proposition 1• 2018 (February) – Reclamation released

Draft Feasibility Report for Phase 2

3

Planning Objectives•Primary

• Develop water supplies for environmental water management that supports fish protection, habitat management, and other environmental water needs.

• Increase water supply reliability for water providers within the Bay Area to help meet M&I water demands during drought periods and emergencies or to address shortages due to regulatory and environmental restrictions.

•Secondary• Improve the quality of water deliveries to M&I customers in the Bay

Area, without impairing the project’s ability to meet the environmental and water supply reliability objectives stated above.

4

Potential Local Agency Partners• Alameda County Water District• Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation

Agency• Byron-Bethany Irrigation District• City of Brentwood• Del Puerto Water District• East Bay Municipal Utility District• East Contra Costa Irrigation District• Grassland Water District• San Francisco Public Utilities

Commission• San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water

Authority• San Luis Water District• Santa Clara Valley Water District• Westlands Water District• Zone 7 Water Agency

CCWD

EBMUD

SFPUC

BAWSCA ACWD

SCVWD

Zone 7

ECCIDBrentwood

BBID

SLDMWA

5

WestlandsSLWDDPWDGWD

CVPIA South-of-Delta Wildlife Refuge Beneficiaries

Habitat managed by• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (federal)• California Department of Fish and Wildlife

(state)• Grassland Water District (local)

South-of-Delta Refuge Water Supplies obligated under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act are managed by Reclamation

Level 2 271,000Incremental Level 4 105,500*Total 376,500 acre-feet*not including conveyance losses

6

Public Draft Feasibility Report Contents•Executive Summary •Main Body•Technical Appendices:

• Appendix A – Plan Formulation• Appendix B – Modeling• Appendix C – Engineering Designs

and Costs• Appendix D – Economic Analysis• Appendix E – Real Estate• Appendix F – Climate Change• Appendix G – Cost Allocation

Existing and Proposed Facilities

1. Los Vaqueros Reservoir Proposed115 TAF additional storage

2. Old River & Middle River Intakes3. Old River Pipeline & Proposed

Delta-Transfer Pipeline4. Transfer Pump Station5. Transfer-LV Pipeline 6. Proposed Transfer-Bethany Pipeline7. Los Vaqueros Pipeline8. CCWD-EBMUD Intertie9. Rock Slough Intake10. Proposed Neroly High-Lift Pump

Station

1

6

2

5

3

8

4

7

910

8

Feasibility Report Alternatives

• No Action• Alternative 1A - Water Supply Reliability • Alternative 1B - Environmental Water Management &

Water Supply Reliability• Alternative 2A - Environmental Water Management• Alternative 4A - Environmental Water Management &

Water Supply Reliability without reservoir expansion

9

Alternatives Comparison –Long-Term Average Annual Benefits

10

Benefit Category ALTERNATIVEUnit 1A 1B 2A 4A

Increase in M&I Water Supply Reliability

TAF/year 15.5 12.9 -5.4 11.2

Emergency Water Supplies Available to M&I Purveyors TAF 168 162 71 79

Increase in Incremental Level 4 Refuge Water Supplies

TAF/year 35.8 45.7 69.0 41.2

Increase in Agricultural Water Supplies

TAF/year 3.4 1.2 1.2 0.8

Increase in Recreation Days to the Los Vaqueros Watershed

visits/year 165,445 165,445 165,445 0

Determining Economic Benefits

•Economic analysis converts physical benefits –such as acre-feet of water supplies, or numbers of recreational visitors – to monetary benefits

•Monetary value is assigned based on different economic methods and approaches specific to each benefit type, consistent with Federal economic principles and guidelines

•Once the monetary value of all benefits is estimated and summed, it can be compared to the total cost of the alternative

11

Example Economic Analysis

12

1 Estimate the physical benefits of a

project

2 Assign an economic

value to the benefits

3 Compare the cost of the project with the value of

the benefits

10 acre-feet

$200 / acre-foot

$2000 benefits

$1000 capital cost$2000

2:1 or 2.0 Benefit-Cost Ratio

Alternatives Comparison –Economic BenefitsBENEFIT CATEGORY

ALTERNATIVE1A 1B 2A 4A

M&I Water Supplies $12.4 $10.3 $(5.0) $9.5

Emergency Water Supplies $24.7 $23.8 $10.4 $11.6

Refuge Water Supplies $17.9 $23.6 $37.4 $21.1

Agricultural Water Supplies $1.9 $0.6 $0.6 $0.4

Recreation $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.0

TOTAL BENEFITS ($million/year) $57.2 $58.6 $43.7 $42.6

13

2015 Dollars

Alternatives Comparison –Benefits and Costs

2015 DollarsNED – National Economic Development

Locally Preferred Plan (LPP)

14

$ MillionsALTERNATIVE

1A 1B 2A 4ATotal Annual NED Benefits $57.2 $58.6 $43.7 $42.6

Total Capital Cost $922 $922 $922 $411

Total Annual Cost $46.6 $47.0 $46.9 $25.7

Net NED Benefits $10.6 $11.6 -$3.2 $16.9

Benefit Cost/Ratio 1.23 1.25 0.93 1.66

NED Plan

Allocation of Capital Cost –NED Plan and LPP

$ Millions NED PlanAlternative 4A

LPPAlternative 1B

LPPAlternative 1BConstrained by

NED Plan

Non-Reimbursable Federal Costs $103 $230 $103

Non-Federal Costs $308 $692 $820

TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $411 $922 $922

Percentage of Capital Costs that are Non-Reimbursable Federal Costs 25.0% 25.0% 11.1%

2015 Dollars, $million Non-Federal costs would include the $434 million requested in the CWC application for fundingNED – National Economic Development

15

Public Draft FR Findings• There is a need for the project, and Federal interest in the project The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575)

institutes a Federal obligation for refuge water supply There is additional need for M&I and agricultural water supplies,

particularly in dry years

• Multiple cost-effective alternative plans were identified Three alternative plans have positive NED benefits Alternative 4A is the NED Plan, and is basis for Federal participation

• The Locally Preferred Plan, Alternative 1B, is recommended for implementation Expansion of reservoir to 275 TAF and construction of new Transfer-

Bethany Pipeline and Neroly High Lift pump station Operated for both M&I and Refuge water supply reliability $839.3 million construction cost, net economic benefit of $11.6M per year

16

Public Draft FR Findings (cont.)• Authorization can be provided under the Water Infrastructure

Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN) (Public Law 114-322) Authorizes Federal participation in State-led projects providing a

benefit in meeting any obligation under Federal law $335 million of funding provided in the Act Limits Federal cost-share to no more than 25 percent total costs If a project meets the requirements of the Act, the Secretary of Interior

recommends the project to the appropriate committee(s) within Congress, which then makes appropriations for planning, design, and construction

CCWD or a future Joint Powers Authority (JPA) would take lead role in final design and construction, in coordination with Reclamation

17

Draft FR Recommendations• Secretary authorize Reclamation participation in implementing

Alternative 1B under WIIN Act Federal investment for Alternative 1B is 11% of the total construction cost of

$922 million, which meets WIIN requirements Annual appropriations should support completion of preconstruction activities

within 5 years, and reservoir area construction completion within 10 years• Secretary authorize Reclamation to enter into agreements with

CCWD, as the local facility owner and operator, for Securing water rights and/or changes to existing water rights necessary to

deliver water supplies to Refuges The long-term use of existing facilities and authorized new facilities, including

provisions for operations, maintenance, and replacement Updating the existing integrated operations agreement between CCWD and

Reclamation Utilizing CVP power for delivering water supplies to Refuges

18

Other Considerations• The Recommended Plan is consistent with CALFED,

CVPIA, and other existing projects and programs• The Recommended Plan would continue to provide

benefits under a wide range of future hydrologic conditions

• The Recommended Plan retains its benefits with California WaterFix

19

California Proposition 1 Funding •The Water Storage Investment Program (WSIP) is being implemented by the California Water Commission (CWC)

•Provides funding for the public benefits of qualifying storage projects

• Ecosystem• Emergency response• Recreation• Water quality*• Flood Control*

20

* Note: CCWD did not apply for public benefits related to water quality and flood control.

California Proposition 1 Funding •CCWD applied to the California Water Commission for $434M in Prop 1 funding in August 2017

•The CWC is reviewing 11 applications•CCWD is responding to CWC’s technical review comments on their application

•Preliminary funding decisions are expected in July 2018

21

CWC Water Storage Investment Program Schedule

22

Feb 23 Appeal letters due

April 20 CWC staff issue response to appeals

May 1-3 CWC meeting to determine final public benefit ratios

May 25 Preliminary funding application scores released

June 27-29 CWC meeting to determine final scores

July 6 Final scores and application ranks posted

July 24-26 CWC meeting to determine conditional funding awards

Comparison of Draft Feasibility Report and CWC Application

23

Federal Feasibility Report CCWD WSIP Application

Recommended Plan Alternative 1B Alternative 1B

Benefits Evaluated Federal Benefits:- Water supply M&I Emergency Refuge Agricultural

- Recreation

California Public Benefits: - Ecosystem- Emergency response- Recreation

Economic Analysis Methods

Consistent with Federal P&Gs Consistent with CWC Technical Reference Document guidance

Comparison of Benefits and Costs

Federal Ratio of Annual Benefits to Costs (B-C ratio)

Public Benefits Ratio (PBR)

Cost assignment and allocation

Costs assigned to Federal benefits and allocated to beneficiaries according to federallaws & regulations

Costs assigned to Public Benefits and assigned to beneficiaries, consistent with CWC guidance

Implications of CWC Funding Decision on the Project•CWC funding would provide for a substantial portion of the non-federal cost share of the Recommended Plan

•CWC funding was not considered in the cost allocation or financial feasibility analyses presented in the Draft Feasibility Report

• Even without CWC funding, local beneficiaries were found to have the capacity to pay for the project

• The cost to the Federal government for the LPP would not change, with or without CWC funding

24

AppropriationsFunding

Agreements

Next Steps

25

Final Feasibility Report and

Final SEIS/R

Submit your comments by

March 3!

CWC Funding Decision

Respond to Comments

Prop 1 Funding Review by

CWC

Draft Feasibility

Report

Thank You

26

Download a copy of the Draft Feasibility Report here:https://www.usbr.gov/mp/vaqueros/